Any atheists here who were once believers?

[Sarkus]

And you feel all happy and energetic and enthusiastic about life when you think like that, eh?

No different than any other philosophy. My thoughts on the matter do not change what it ultimately is, and I accept that I can not know what it ultimately is. So why should what it ultimately is affect how I live my life?

The intellect, theory, philosophy are part of reality, are thus also reality.

Sure, but do not always or necessarily inform our practical life.
Right.

Why do we care?

Because our ego does not like us to be wrong, even if it can accept being so when identified. And so we question claims made by others where they conflict our own, until we can establish who is and isn't correct.
It is not so much that we care that they know or don't, but we care that we don't know. But before we can accept their claims, we need to be sure that they do indeed know, rather than merely claim to know.

Conviction/desire/motivation are part of reality, they aren't somehow alien to this universe. Which is why they do speak of the truth. Which is why I said that there my be a lot more to this.

They speak about what they consider to be the truth of but do not necessarily speak of the truth itself. But those things themselves are other truths, sure.

Eh, sometimes I think you're only nominally an agnostic.

I think God is unknowable: I am agnostic.

Not just through revelation, but through anything.

Such as?

Then it's not real agnosticism. Real agnosticism would allow for the change of any premise.

No it wouldn't. (Strong) agnosticism as it relates to God is a single premise: God is unknowable.
Sure, something might make that change... but I don't know what that something is. Thus I am agnostic: I don't know what would make God knowable... if I did know then I wouldn't think God was unknowable - as there would be something that would make God knowable.

 

[Sarkus]

I think it is adequate: a person starts out with believing (!) coffee to be distasteful, but later on, they believe it tastes just fine.
I think beliefs are involved in what we find - ie. believe - to be tasty or not.

You would be right, other than the simple matter of evidence supporting the belie that does not rely on the circle to verify it. I.e. the belief "I like coffee" is actually something that can be evidenced through brain activity. Plus it does not speak to coffee being objectively tasty... and the claim "God exists" is surely believed as an objective matter - i.e. they believe God exists for all. A personal "God" might be another matter, though.

I think that people "begin to believe" for basically two categories of reasons:

Sure... not disputed too much... but I still think Belief in God does not fall into your usual categories of belief, as explained.

One problem I see with your approach is that you are trying to think about beliefs in a way that would entirely avoid whatever personal there may be about holding a belief. But since belief takes place within a person, it is necessarily personal!

Because I think the tenets of such as a belief in God should be independent of personal matters, and that such personal matters lead to irrational conclusions, even if the actions of those conclusions are beneficial... i.e. if one believes because it gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling, then one should look for what is giving them that feeling, why they need it, why it might otherwise be lacking etc.

No, like I said later, it seems you believe they are to be considered seriously in the sense that unintended but absurd consequences of some lines of reasoning - and we don't want to end up in absurd consequences with our reasoning.

In what way is it absurd? That is your view of them, not mine. If you deem the consequence absurd then perhaps your reasoning is either wrong, or perhaps it doesn't include an assumption that you weren't aware you actually make?

Simply seeing the name "Descartes" and "I exist" are red flags for me, hence I wanted to clarify.

I didn't mention his name... you did. I merely said that I consider "I exist" to be the only self-evident thing.

 

[Billy T]

OK -I'm forced to come out of the closet: I firmly believe unicorns are real, just can't see them pulling plows on Earth, but somewhere in the great universe, on some planet, they are.

That just seems probable; But I remain agnostic about the existence of God - no reason or evidence for that, but absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Atheists and theists are on shaky ground, logically.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

God is a unicorn!

 

[wegs]

OK -I'm forced to come out of the closet: I firmly believe unicorns are real, just can't see them pulling plows on Earth, but somewhere in the great universe, on some planet, they are.

That just seems probable; But I remain agnostic about the existence of God - no reason or evidence for that, but absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Atheists and theists are on shaky ground, logically.

I was hoping you would come around.

God is a unicorn!

Aw! He looks kinda sad, though.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Some atheists do believe in a transcendental/spiritual realm... they just do not believe in God.

Not that it matters, but lets narrow the field to you and the atheist in this thread.

Nature does not deem that nature does not exist... they deem that a specific claim of what nature includes or is (depending on one's concept of God) does not exist.

If everything is nothing but nature, then all concepts are part and parcel of nature, and as you say, nature does not deem part of itself non existent. So what is it that does?

If one wishes to merely say "God is nature" or "God is the universe"

Your perspective claims that everything is nature.

So you have a concept of God. QED.

Anybody and everybody can have a concept. The difference between you and I is I don't believe in my personal concept of God, you do. And you want to say that you were a theist. As if to say that is what theism is.

Your attempt to wave away belief that atheists used to have as mere belief in a concept is thus, by your own admission here, hypocritical.

Your idea of God is synomonous with Santa Clause, Sky Daddy, and all other atheist references.
Why else would you strip Him down (or in the atheist world, give Him a makeover), because you don't understand what you're reading. You can only compare it to an atheist mindset.
You have always been an atheist.

And if you continue to argue that there is a meaningful difference it will be nothing but hypocritical dishonesty.

You wish.

One can not believe in God without forming some concept. Even you have a concept - as you have acknowledged above.

Spoken like a true atheist.
You don't know what and who God is, outside of Santa, the old man in the sky?
Am I wrong? Prove it.

So when you concluded on God, you now claim to have had no concept of what you were concluding on, despite your admission not a few sentences before?

Who said I ''concluded'' anything?

As said, Jan, you are running round in circles here.

Of course it seems that way to you.

Skilled musicians learn that from all the practice they have put in to the instrument. They do not come to that state without it... they have a concept of music, of the instrument etc.
Your analogy is thus woeful.

Practice doesn't necessarily give you that ability, either you have it or you don't.

I have not said that. But to reach such a conclusion you must have a concept of what your existence is, what your body is etc.

So you understand that these thing are ''not concepts'', and that is what I come to conclude, not any concepts I may or may not have had.

One simply can not form a thought without some concept behind the words being used.

God is not a concept, or idea. His existence did not come into being, and as far as anyone on the planet is concerned, God has always been. The notion that God is a concoted idea is purely a concotion and a concept with nothing to support it.

I was, yes, despite your incredulity.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

That initial belief may have been built on shaky ground and easily tumbled, but it was still belief in God.

Despite what you may say, for you, here and now, God does not exist. So you are saying what you believed in WAS God, but now God does not exist. That means if anyone else cannot convince you of God's existence, but believes in God, then as far as you're concerned that person is a liar, or delusional. There is no way you believed in God. Nothing you have said in all our discussions lead me to believe you have any understanding of what, why, or how people believe in God.

Yours may be a less shaky belief, and thus you perhaps can not understand how others had a more fragile structure to theirs. But whatever structure we both had, we were both looking at the same view.

Even this statement shows your lack of understanding.

My belief collapsed.

Your belief collapsed because as time moved on, your concept of God didn't do anything for you. IOW, it got boring, and it was time to be yourself instead of pretending to be what you were not.

For some reason you see belief as the structure and reasoning, which for you must be, by default, unshakable.

You don't want to understand my belief because it will contradict/illuminate your concept of belief.

For me belief is not the reasoning for reaching that point, or the structure, but the view once you are there - however you got there.

Belief is nothing but a state of mind. God however, is a different kettle-of-fish.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

A theist believes in God. An atheists doesn't but God exists because both the theist and the atheist are part of nature including the actions of the theist. The theist acts as it God exists so God exists?

How contorted does one's logic have to become to allow them to believe in God? The answer, apparently is...pretty contorted.

Why don't you try reading what I've written and stop trying to be a smart arse?

If you're as confident and cocky as you're making out, then respond to what I'm saying.

Personally I think you're a coward. But let's see.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's right, yeah, you just blame me, you haughty wannabe hindu.

Touche!
After all I did imply that you're quite possibly insane.

jan.

 

[Aqueous Id]

God is a unicorn!

This is what put the Uni in Unitarianism. But folks, don't go away mad. Just send away your long held superstitions.

Ask yourself: what better symbolizes the kernel of the Universe. So far it's got more going for it than any religion I can think of. That being said, I personally favor the idea of a Great Wolf scattering the stars across the sky. What? You folks think that's a myth? Careful, that's a double-edged sword. But at least Wolf can be shown to infer "God spelled backwards" so it has to stay in the basket as a viable contender for explaining Ultimate Reality. Non-English speakers could try to offer that tired old etymological argument, but everyone with half a sense knows God speaks English. He is directly quoted saying "Let there be light." And from behind the burning bush somewhere, we heard God, and he is definitely a baritone. I forgot what he said, but it sounded just like Charlton Heston. I think Chris Farley (RIP) figured out what it was, by measuring the acoustic resonance of phonemes in a vortex. No doubt about it: English was God's native tongue (or tongues). Dig a little deeper and you realize God is obviously Uhmurruhcun. Why else would he let the U.S. kick butt and take names? Even the KKK knows God is white, obviously you didn't have white folks taking care of black bankers' scuffed spats down on shoe shine stands of Wall Street in the 1920s. And what do white folks speak? Duh. English. Not British or Scottish or even Australian, but English.

The more I think about it, choosing a religion is something like buying a car. You get to choose the color, instrument package, mileage, a seat vs. a pew, power windows . . . and of course horsepower. But I guess since religion isn't going anywhere--it sure isn't leaving home--we might as well forego the investment and stick to walking. Besides, you never know what new facts you'll pick up along the way, once you've begin to study the ground under your own feet.

Speaking of hooves, that leaves a unicorn as a pretty good choice. It's genetically closer to a wolf (something the Christian God can't show since he has no DNA) and it has a much better disposition that a wolf, which is another clue. All that "Angry God" stuff is, well, myth. It's like Dad rushing off to work without so much as a peck on the cheek. It's not that he didn't love you, he was just in a hurry to tend to pressing business.

Consider this. The unicorn is not as well known as the wolf, and yet shows up in books and stories everywhere. So that ought to tell you something. It's either described as pink or purple which no doubt infers God approaching (ultraviolet) or going elsewhere (infrared). Evidently God is a very fast unicorn. And of course he's very busy tending to supernovas, tilling their atomic DNA into new systems. Don't mistake this for his reason for ignoring your pleas for better stuff. I'm sure he'd be glad to help, it's just that has bigger fish to fry.

The "corn" in "Unicorn" isn't even what it appears to be. God could be saying "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog's back" and at mach one million or so, all you would hear is "corn". Say it real fast, corn. See what I mean? At mach one million, he could be reciting the entire text of Origin of the Species followed by Einstein’s paper on Electrodynamics, followed by Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible and all you would hear is "corn".

All that stuff about The Word isn't too far off base, since "corn" is an utterance which (as we have seen) compresses as much information as we need into one concise little blip on your sonar. Corn. It's not just a word but a veritable cornipedia, all rolled up for believers to ingest. Talk about your holy meals. Put down the wafer. Step away from the chalice. It's all about the corn.

That leaves for the skeptics the fusion of "Uni" + "corn". Here you need to know a little acoustics. If you're hearing "corn" in all directions, like polytheists do, then your idea of God is the lesser known Omnicorn. You've never heard of such a thing, have you. That's because they're coming and going in all directions at mach one million, cancelling each other's waves and leaving no trace at all. But Unicorn is unidirectional, either purple (approaching) or pink (leaving). This unidirectionality is symbolized by the horn located near God's vocal orifice. Anyone can tell you horns are unidirectional. The challenge for the believer then, in this One True God, the God of the unidirectional all-knowing cornipedia, is to go with the program. Dust off those old textbooks and do the math. It all adds up. All of the evidence points to divine revelation.

QED, God is a Unicorn.

PS - for those who can't resist the chance to snipe, there is a site for you. It began as Institute for Corn Research but was bought out with some of the gold the Catholics are hoarding over in the Vatican. That's why they have guards all around the place. Anyway, the Catholics for some reason hired these fundamentalist web designers who inserted a bunch of encrypted Java script into the home page, so it comes out way way weirder than the Pope intended, but he doesn't know, because it only runs if you access the page from a location outside the walls of Vatican City. That's when they changed it to Institute for Creation Research. But if you have any complaints about the Great Unicorn, or if you are want to argue about the transcendental meaning of a holy scarecrow, or any other religious lunacy, then please, for the love or all that is sacred (to include cosmic foam and pink cotton candy) --whatever-- please refer to the ICR site. They're dying to hear from you. Because you folks are full of it.

 

[wynn]

Touche!
After all I did imply that you're quite possibly insane.

Lol.
Manipulation and power trips are essential to living a good life, and don't you repudiate that.
You're very good at power trips, in fact, your whole reference religion is, in my experience, unmatchable in this.
To hell with our humanistic sensibilities - here come the elbows and the kicking and pissing on people!

 

[wynn]

No different than any other philosophy. My thoughts on the matter do not change what it ultimately is, and I accept that I can not know what it ultimately is. So why should what it ultimately is affect how I live my life?
Sure, but do not always or necessarily inform our practical life.

I think God is unknowable: I am agnostic.

The difference between us is that you're a strong agnostic, and I'm a weak agnostic. I merely don't know, but believe it could be known; you hold that it cannot be known.
Given this, I'm not sure we'll get far together.

Because our ego does not like us to be wrong, even if it can accept being so when identified. And so we question claims made by others where they conflict our own, until we can establish who is and isn't correct.

Oh, but as a strong agnostic, you cannot possibly establish who is and isn't correct!

Such as?

For a strong agnostic, this probably isn't the case to begin with. But for a weak agnostic, an unpredictable number of things could completely change the way he thinks.

No it wouldn't. (Strong) agnosticism as it relates to God is a single premise: God is unknowable.
Sure, something might make that change... but I don't know what that something is. Thus I am agnostic: I don't know what would make God knowable... if I did know then I wouldn't think God was unknowable - as there would be something that would make God knowable.

It's your starting premise that God is unknowable that prevents you from considering that there may be things that could make God knowable.
(And as long as you allow for the possibility of revelation from God, you're not a consistent strong agnostic.)

You would be right, other than the simple matter of evidence supporting the belie that does not rely on the circle to verify it. I.e. the belief "I like coffee" is actually something that can be evidenced through brain activity.

Introducing qualifiers like "evidenced through brain activity" means introducing faith in other people and processes. I want to keep things simple, within the confines of one's own mind, practice and experience, so that one can check for oneself.

Plus it does not speak to coffee being objectively tasty... and the claim "God exists" is surely believed as an objective matter - i.e. they believe God exists for all. A personal "God" might be another matter, though.

For people who end up liking coffee, coffee is experienced as being objectively tasty. That's why they assume there must be something wrong with a person who doesn't like coffee.

Because I think the tenets of such as a belief in God should be independent of personal matters,

No belief can be independent of personal matters, because belief is a personal matter.

It seems that when you say " the tenets of such as a belief in God should be independent of personal matters" you're actually talking about the objective existence of things, not about belief in them. That the "objective existence of things" is something that is independent of personal matters.

if one believes because it gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling

I seriously doubt anyone actually believes in God "because it gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling."

In what way is it absurd? That is your view of them, not mine. If you deem the consequence absurd then perhaps your reasoning is either wrong, or perhaps it doesn't include an assumption that you weren't aware you actually make?

Perhaps for a strong agnostic, neither solipsism nor brain in a vat scenarios are absurd ...

I didn't mention his name... you did. I merely said that I consider "I exist" to be the only self-evident thing.

Yes, and "I exist" reminds me of Descartes. It's my quirk. Deal with it.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Atheism is just an antithesis.

Which is also semantics...

 

[(Q)]

No belief can be independent of personal matters, because belief is a personal matter.

Then, why are beliefs aired in public? Why are those beliefs not kept behind closed doors where they belong, if indeed, they are personal matters?

 

[wynn]

Then, why are beliefs aired in public? Why are those beliefs not kept behind closed doors where they belong, if indeed, they are personal matters?

Oh, you know at least one part of the answer to that one!

 

[Sarkus]

If everything is nothing but nature, then all concepts are part and parcel of nature, and as you say, nature does not deem part of itself non existent. So what is it that does?

What is that does what? Deem itself non-existent? Everything in nature exists, and I am not aware of any part of nature that deems itself non-existent.
That is not to say that every concept we can conceive of exists as anything other than the concept (i.e. within the mind).

Your perspective claims that everything is nature.

And everything we conceive of exists as concepts (i.e. within the mind) but not necessarily in actuality as anything other than that concept.

Anybody and everybody can have a concept. The difference between you and I is I don't believe in my personal concept of God, you do. And you want to say that you were a theist. As if to say that is what theism is.

I don't believe in your personal concept of God, nor mine. I believed in God. I believed in my concept of God. I could not have believed in God without having some concept of God.
You have yet to show how that is possible - neither logically nor practically - other than through mere word games.
And theism, by any definition, is belief in God. Not belief in a specific concept, or non-concept of God. It is belief in God. Just as atheism is a lack of that belief.
I believed in God. I was a theist.
I no longer have that belief. I am an atheist.

Your idea of God is synomonous with Santa Clause, Sky Daddy, and all other atheist references.

Well, yes, in that I don't believe in any of them any more, and I used to believe in God and Santa Claus.
My concept of God was, initially (up to about the age of six or seven), that of a Sky Daddy, but not after that.
And before I stopped believing it was merely "First Cause".
It was still a concept.
But not all concepts are synonymous.

Why else would you strip Him down (or in the atheist world, give Him a makeover), because you don't understand what you're reading. You can only compare it to an atheist mindset.
You have always been an atheist.

Until you explain how it is possible for one to believe in God without believing in one's concept of God, you're just lost in your word-games and your desire to conclude that it is not possible to believe in God and subsequently become an atheist. You have offered nothing but word-games to explain your position.

You wish.

I don't wish. But it is.
You could of course show me how it is not by explaining the difference, and show how you believe in God but not in a concept of God.
Can you do that, please?

Spoken like a true atheist.
You don't know what and who God is, outside of Santa, the old man in the sky?
Am I wrong? Prove it.

Beyond being "first cause" I have no idea what and who God is, even inside of Santa, the old man in the sky or any other concept one wishes to suggest.
That is what a (strong) agnostic is... someone who considers God unknowable.
What did you expect me to say?
Even me considering God as "first cause" is merely something on which to hang the label, and seems to be the very least that others who use the term also ascribe to God.
Other than that it is a three-letter word.

Do you know more of who or what God is? And yet you still refuse to acknowledge you believe in that concept of God??

Who said I ''concluded'' anything?

So you're also an agnostic????

Of course it seems that way to you.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Practice doesn't necessarily give you that ability, either you have it or you don't.

Not everyone may be able to achieve it, but that does not negate the matter of them having the concept of what it is. One can not even be a musician without the concept of what an instrument is, what music is etc. So your analogy remains woeful.

So you understand that these thing are ''not concepts'', and that is what I come to conclude, not any concepts I may or may not have had.

No, I don't understand that. If you conclude something you must have a concept of what you are concluding. You have concluded "I am not my body" - so you have a concept... of what "I" am, what your "body" is, and how (you consider) the two are not the same. These are concepts. Your conclusion is a concept. It can be nothing else.

God is not a concept, or idea. His existence did not come into being, and as far as anyone on the planet is concerned, God has always been. The notion that God is a concoted idea is purely a concotion and a concept with nothing to support it.

Then you HAVE a concept: God is something that "did not come into being, and as far as anyone on the planet is concerned, God has always been". This is a concept. Do you not understand this to be a concept?
What meaning of the word are you otherwise using??? Does it mean you have to be able to explain every detail of the concept? No. It can be woolly or as detailed as it is.

Despite what you may say, for you, here and now, God does not exist.

I live my life at a practical level as though God does not exist, but I have no knowledge as to whether God exists or not, nor even what God may be other than the "first cause" that theistic religions seem to agree upon.

So you are saying what you believed in WAS God, but now God does not exist.

No.
I am saying that God either exists or he doesn't, irrespective of my belief.
I believed in the existence of God. I believed IN God.
I am not saying that God now does not exist... I am saying that I no longer have the belief he does, but I do not believe that he does not exist. I simply do not know. I used to be sure. Now I am not.

That means if anyone else cannot convince you of God's existence, but believes in God, then as far as you're concerned that person is a liar, or delusional.

NO! I have answered this point of yours time and time again! Yet still you raise it as if it is a logical conclusion without once actually addressing my response.
So I will detail it again: To consider a person a liar the person must know they are wrong. To consider a person delusional there must be evidence to the contrary that the person ignores / refuses to acknowledge. Neither is the case with belief in God. At best they have knowledge that I do not but that which I am not capable of discerning the truth or otherwise of (hence the cycle of needing to believe to believe). At worst they are simply mistaken.
Did you lie or were you delusional with every wrong answer you gave in exams you took?
So stop with your unfounded and unwarranted accusations.

There is no way you believed in God. Nothing you have said in all our discussions lead me to believe you have any understanding of what, why, or how people believe in God.

And yet nothing you have said suggests how I did not believe in God. :shrug:

Even this statement shows your lack of understanding.

Yet you have been unable to explain otherwise.

Your belief collapsed because as time moved on, your concept of God didn't do anything for you. IOW, it got boring, and it was time to be yourself instead of pretending to be what you were not.

Yet you believe in God without believing in your concept of God, which means that you can not, in any way, describe anything about God, any attribute, or even say that God is something along the lines of "first cause". Word-games, Jan. That's all you're offering.

You don't want to understand my belief because it will contradict/illuminate your concept of belief.

Nice accusation.
Perhaps it is not a matter of not wanting to, but rather an inability to because you are unable to explain it in a way that is understandable - but rather you indulge in word-games of "believing in God without believing in the concept of God".

 

[(Q)]

Oh, you know at least one part of the answer to that one!

Yes, theists are hypocrites.

 

[Sarkus]

The difference between us is that you're a strong agnostic, and I'm a weak agnostic. I merely don't know, but believe it could be known; you hold that it cannot be known.
Given this, I'm not sure we'll get far together.

Let's say I border on the strong side precisely because I do not know how God could become knowable. I would not go so far as to say it is impossible, as I simply do not know.
Actually, direct revelation would be one way. But what that might entail... no idea.

Oh, but as a strong agnostic, you cannot possibly establish who is and isn't correct!

On matters of God, probably not.

It's your starting premise that God is unknowable that prevents you from considering that there may be things that could make God knowable.
(And as long as you allow for the possibility of revelation from God, you're not a consistent strong agnostic.)

I'm consistent to the strength of agnosticism I consider myself to be. I am not, as stated, an absolutely strong agnostic... but more strong than weak, because I do not know what would make god knowable... hence I don't think it is possible.

Introducing qualifiers like "evidenced through brain activity" means introducing faith in other people and processes. I want to keep things simple, within the confines of one's own mind, practice and experience, so that one can check for oneself.

Ah, the old "simplify until the important difference is removed".

For people who end up liking coffee, coffee is experienced as being objectively tasty. That's why they assume there must be something wrong with a person who doesn't like coffee.

But coffee is not objectively tasty. Some people dislike coffee. "experienced as being objectively tasty" is an oxymoron: experience is subjective.

No belief can be independent of personal matters, because belief is a personal matter.

The act of holding belief is a personal matter, but the rationale for belief need not be. Just as it is a personal matter to hold a cup in one's hand... but there need be no personal reason to pick up the cup, rather just impersonal reasons.

It seems that when you say " the tenets of such as a belief in God should be independent of personal matters" you're actually talking about the objective existence of things, not about belief in them. That the "objective existence of things" is something that is independent of personal matters.

Well, sort of. The tenets of a belief - i.e. what you are believing in - should be independent of the personal... otherwise it is the personal that gives them (in part) existence. So if the tenets are independent, the reasoning for belief in them should also, in my view, be independent. We should believe in them because they exist, not because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy to believe it. But I appreciate that it is not always possible to separate the personal, and maybe I am speaking from ideal rather than anything else.

I seriously doubt anyone actually believes in God "because it gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling."

Well, perhaps not in the Catholic church.
Take it merely as my catch-all phrase for "personal reasons".

Perhaps for a strong agnostic, neither solipsism nor brain in a vat scenarios are absurd ...

I'm still intrigued as to why you do think them absurd, unless working from some assumption that renders them so?

Yes, and "I exist" reminds me of Descartes. It's my quirk. Deal with it.

Dealt with.

 

[wynn]

Yes, theists are hypocrites.

You would know, of course.

 

[(Q)]

You would know, of course.

Yes, I hear their hypocrisy constantly. It's truly stunning how they are unable to utter an honest word.

 

[wegs]

How is it that one can be logged in here, multi-qoute a variety of posts, put together responses to those posts, press 'post quick reply,' and poof! Everything is gone that you just replied to, and a sign in page appears. :bugeye: I went back a page, but to no avail. Ugh. ARGH! So painful.

wynn, your points relating to ''qualifiers,'' are outstanding, and honestly? Have very little to do with religion or spirituality, in general. It honestly could be at the heart of why many people feel 'drawn' to religion, and some don't. Why some believe in God, and some don't. And why some don't take a firm stand either way. (like me)

When I have more time to reply later/tomorrow, I would like to explore those ideas in greater detail.

This thread has helped me in ways, some of you will never know. So, thank you.